4 ms·

Arguably the wealthy are now liberals...cultured elites in the cities. I think you can see this by tracking who donates to Dem. campaigns....so just saying...do

Arguably the wealthy are now liberals...cultured elites in the cities. I think you can see this by tracking who donates to Dem. campaigns....so just saying...don't be quick to roll out this old trope that Rep.= wealthy. I don't think it's that simple. I'll counter and say the only way to fix it is to either go to pre-1917 no income tax, and have a smaller government (do we really need $700BN/yr on defense around the world?), or move to a flat % wealth or income tax (if you are pro-progressive, set an offset that neutralizes to $0 at say $50k/year, but I am against). We can do this without all the loopholes and misaligned incentives that causes finger pointing in all directions. And we won't need the CompSci majors from CalTech!

zelon88 8y ago
I would point out that the "elitist liberals" in the cities are actually your middle/lower-middle class citizens. They make probably between $50k and $150k. So they're not doing terrible, but not wealthy enough to blip on anybody's radar. They're the prime movers of the economy (we can agree on that or not). On either side of those "elitist liberals" are where I see the biggest concentration of conservative political views. There's the stoic >$50k crowd who preach personal responsibility between drags off a Pall Mall while Rosanne reruns play softly in the background but carry balances on all their debts and haven't had a raise or a job interview in 10 years. They think the world should be like them, content to stay near the bottom because they think they're still in the middle. Probably lower-mid level education with a proclivity to disdain any social spending at all with an emphasis on "WWJD?" These people are conservative because their own brand of low-effort thought aligns with typical knee-jerk conservative policies like "shut down the entire border" or "trickle down economics creates jobs (that aren't worth having)." They only know about the social conservative policies that (they believe) affect them. Like women's rights (or lack of), LBTQ rights, anti-discrimination, gun laws. Economically they have no idea what's going on and they just trust whoever tells them they get to keep their guns. On the other side of the "elitist liberals" are the ultra-wealthy conservatives. They are the engines of the party and use their resources and influence to concoct the low-effort policies that rope in the lower-class conservatives. Then they focus their hoarde on how "amoral" the left is while these ultra-wealthy conservatives empty all of the social services the non-stoic poor people rely on to save themselves money and taxes. They use their lower-education counterparts as pawns and fodder to keep the liberals busy talking about non-issues while they dismantle safety nets and redirect government resources into the private sector. They don't believe half of the things their own party tells poor people, but they all rub each other off and that's what keeps the party going.
- HillaryBriss 8y ago
  and yet, when we look at most of the political endorsements of Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates and nearly all of SVs billionaires we see that they tend to favor Democratic candidates. the simple idea of rich republicans vs. average to poor democrats has some truth, but there's also the pesky fact of a large number of liberal Democratic billionaires which complicates the picture. i think it's because these ultra-wealthy folks can extract their needs from (aka corrupt) any politician. D vs R doesn't really matter much.
  - zelon88 8y ago
    > and yet, when we look at most of the political endorsements of Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates and nearly all of SVs billionaires we see that they tend to favor Democratic candidates. Actions speak louder than words. Endorsing a democratic candidate while paying your warehouse employees barely enough to survive without food stamps doesn't exactly quality you for "liberal of the year." > i think it's because these ultra-wealthy folks can extract their needs from (aka corrupt) any politician. D vs R doesn't really matter much. This is 100% true, and also why I did not/do not support Hilary Clinton for any elected office.
    - HillaryBriss 8y ago
      yeah. rich Democrats are not always so liberal with their own cash. but they can still drape themselves in the cloak of the "socially liberal," whatever that means and for whatever it's worth. of course, even that idealism may evaporate if it means an intelligent, meritorious poor or disadvantaged student might take the place of a favored son at an elite university. are the wealthy really "D" or "R" at all? it seems to me they're "W" first and foremost. also narcissistic. really narcissistic. presidentially narcissistic.
- taysic 8y ago
  You can look at a map by precinct of what percentage of people voted for Hilary Clinton and you will see that some of the highest percentages were the most wealthy areas in CA: https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol-ca-california-neighborhood-election-results/ https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol-ca-california-neighb...

zelon88 8y ago

I would point out that the "elitist liberals" in the cities are actually your middle/lower-middle class citizens. They make probably between $50k and $150k. So they're not doing terrible, but not wealthy enough to blip on anybody's radar. They're the prime movers of the economy (we can agree on that or not). On either side of those "elitist liberals" are where I see the biggest concentration of conservative political views. There's the stoic >$50k crowd who preach personal responsibility between drags off a Pall Mall while Rosanne reruns play softly in the background but carry balances on all their debts and haven't had a raise or a job interview in 10 years. They think the world should be like them, content to stay near the bottom because they think they're still in the middle. Probably lower-mid level education with a proclivity to disdain any social spending at all with an emphasis on "WWJD?" These people are conservative because their own brand of low-effort thought aligns with typical knee-jerk conservative policies like "shut down the entire border" or "trickle down economics creates jobs (that aren't worth having)." They only know about the social conservative policies that (they believe) affect them. Like women's rights (or lack of), LBTQ rights, anti-discrimination, gun laws. Economically they have no idea what's going on and they just trust whoever tells them they get to keep their guns. On the other side of the "elitist liberals" are the ultra-wealthy conservatives. They are the engines of the party and use their resources and influence to concoct the low-effort policies that rope in the lower-class conservatives. Then they focus their hoarde on how "amoral" the left is while these ultra-wealthy conservatives empty all of the social services the non-stoic poor people rely on to save themselves money and taxes. They use their lower-education counterparts as pawns and fodder to keep the liberals busy talking about non-issues while they dismantle safety nets and redirect government resources into the private sector. They don't believe half of the things their own party tells poor people, but they all rub each other off and that's what keeps the party going.

HillaryBriss 8y ago
and yet, when we look at most of the political endorsements of Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates and nearly all of SVs billionaires we see that they tend to favor Democratic candidates. the simple idea of rich republicans vs. average to poor democrats has some truth, but there's also the pesky fact of a large number of liberal Democratic billionaires which complicates the picture. i think it's because these ultra-wealthy folks can extract their needs from (aka corrupt) any politician. D vs R doesn't really matter much.
- zelon88 8y ago
  > and yet, when we look at most of the political endorsements of Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates and nearly all of SVs billionaires we see that they tend to favor Democratic candidates. Actions speak louder than words. Endorsing a democratic candidate while paying your warehouse employees barely enough to survive without food stamps doesn't exactly quality you for "liberal of the year." > i think it's because these ultra-wealthy folks can extract their needs from (aka corrupt) any politician. D vs R doesn't really matter much. This is 100% true, and also why I did not/do not support Hilary Clinton for any elected office.
  - HillaryBriss 8y ago
    yeah. rich Democrats are not always so liberal with their own cash. but they can still drape themselves in the cloak of the "socially liberal," whatever that means and for whatever it's worth. of course, even that idealism may evaporate if it means an intelligent, meritorious poor or disadvantaged student might take the place of a favored son at an elite university. are the wealthy really "D" or "R" at all? it seems to me they're "W" first and foremost. also narcissistic. really narcissistic. presidentially narcissistic.
taysic 8y ago
You can look at a map by precinct of what percentage of people voted for Hilary Clinton and you will see that some of the highest percentages were the most wealthy areas in CA: https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol-ca-california-neighborhood-election-results/ https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol-ca-california-neighb...